The SSPX and True Catholicism

[GerardP]

It is a definition, not an arguement. LeFebvre was told that the ordinations would be and act of schism. Do you think he accidently ordained them or accidently ordaind them? In any case, whatever my arguements, one of the lengths posted earlier linked back to the AAA forum where the letter was referenced defining the schism. No arguement by any poster her is going to over-ride a the pope, at least for faithful Catholics.

Again, that is a logical fallacy of appeal to authority. LeFebvre could have been told that the consecration (not ordinations) would have been an act of simony and it would be just as false.

Disobedience does not constitute schism. A letter saying that the consecrations would be an act of schism is simply a bluff. This is why there are so many prelates and canon lawyers who disagree on this issue. JPII was wrong, plain and simple. Yet too many people are willing to subordinate the truth of this out of a false sense of respect for the Holy Father.

When John XXII stated that no one saw the beatific vision until the final judgement he was wrong. Plain and simple. Somebody had to tell him. Unfortunately for JPII either no one told him or he refused to listen.

And to say that no argument can override the opinion of a Pope is simply silly. You are arguing that the Pope is impeccable and irresistible. There is no tradition or teaching of anything of the sort in the history of the Church. The truth doesn’t change when one Pope corrects another. It just sets the record straight. The one argument is true and the other false regardless of the rank of those arguing. A five year old who says 2+2=4 is correct no matter how many Popes, Presidents or Philosophers say 2+2=5.

It’s not a matter of “overriding” anything. It’s about the truth. It stands objectively outside of the rulings of the Pope and the opinions of anyone. For the Pope to speak the truth or anyone, they must submit to the objective reality.

As Alice von Hildebrand once said, “I don’t impose anything. It’s the truth. I don’t own it. It simply is.”

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Disobedience does not constitute schism. A letter saying that the consecrations would be an act of schism is simply a bluff. This is why there are so many prelates and canon lawyers who disagree on this issue. JPII was wrong, plain and simple. Yet too many people are willing to subordinate the truth of this out of a false sense of respect for the Holy Father.

quote]

Actually, it’s a premise of Church Law that the Pontiff, as Supreme Legislator, is the final authority ON that law. He didn’t excommunicate the Arch and the Fab Four, he merely confirmed that they were in fact excommunicated by that law. John Paul was right, plain and simple, because he was the Supreme Legislator. The Arch was excommunicated and he died in that state. The other bishops are as well.

 

[LilyM]

But your only proof that we are not talking about two priceless statues is that you personally don’t like the new statue.

It’s like comparing a painting by Leonardo with one by Picasso. Totally different artistic styles, each equally valid as art, each equally glorious when displayed properly, each equally valuable.

Leonardo’s painting, having been around and studied for 500 years, everyone knows it and accepts it as the work of a genius. Picasso, in the 1950s when he had been painting for 40 years, was not so well understood and not so widely accepted. Now that his work has been around for closer to 100 years, it is held in every bit as much estimation as Leonardo.

But those, like my father, who like a realistic style of painting, will never appreciate Picasso and never acknowledge his worth as an artist

 

[GerardP]

GerardP;1863978:

Disobedience does not constitute schism. A letter saying that the consecrations would be an act of schism is simply a bluff. This is why there are so many prelates and canon lawyers who disagree on this issue. JPII was wrong, plain and simple. Yet too many people are willing to subordinate the truth of this out of a false sense of respect for the Holy Father.

quote]

Actually, it’s a premise of Church Law that the Pontiff, as Supreme Legislator, is the final authority ON that law. He didn’t excommunicate the Arch and the Fab Four, he merely confirmed that they were in fact excommunicated by that law. John Paul was right, plain and simple, because he was the Supreme Legislator. The Arch was excommunicated and he died in that state. The other bishops are as well.

Being the final authority on a law does not make him right. All that means is that there is no appeal process that can override him. At one time it was thought a council could override a Pope and depose him.

The logic of your argument supports abortion rights. For example, the Supreme Court of the U.S. states that abortion is a right that is contained in the Constitution. Everyone with common sense knows it isn’t. But the law isn’t going to be corrected until the Supreme Court reverses it because the Supreme Court is the final authority on the constitutionality of the law.

The Pope is no more right on this and has no guarantee of being right than the Supreme Ct. on Abortion.

If the Pope were not the final authority, the SSPX would be able to appeal to whoever the final authority is. As it is, they can only appeal to the current Pope to correct the errors of the previous Popes.

To say that the Pope is right “because He’s the Pope” is once again to take the position that the Pope is impeccable. He is not.

 

[GerardP]

It’s like comparing a painting by Leonardo with one by Picasso. Totally different artistic styles, each equally valid as art, each equally glorious when displayed properly, each equally valuable.

Leonardo’s painting, having been around and studied for 500 years, everyone knows it and accepts it as the work of a genius. Picasso, in the 1950s when he had been painting for 40 years, was not so well understood and not so widely accepted. Now that his work has been around for closer to 100 years, it is held in every bit as much estimation as Leonardo.

But those, like my father, who like a realistic style of painting, will never appreciate Picasso and never acknowledge his worth as an artist

What makes you think that two pieces of artwork from two different periods in time can’t be compared and one of them to be found to be of higher value than the other?

To make the analogy a little clearer, the TLM could be analogous to a fine Rembrandt (Leonardo was not a successful painter when you get into it.) And the Novus Ordo could be compared to a Jackson Pollack.

Rembrandt is superior to Pollack on all counts when it comes to understanding and evaluating the qualities of art (decorative, expressive and illustrative ) and the use of plastic means (line, light, color and space)

Picasso is not really a good example of the Novus Ordo because he draws heavily from the traditions of Spain, the Orient, Africa and Ancient Egypt. Even his cubist period stems from Cezanne and the work of Paul Brach.

If there had been a promulgation of a rite of Mass that pulled from tradition as heavily as Picasso, the Novus Ordo would have had much more success.

Unless you want to make the comparison of the Novus Ordo and the Protestant services with Picasso vs. Matisse. Picasso was completely incapable of handling color relationships on the level of sophistication that Matisse was. So, Picasso’s works in bright color tend to fail and have a random quality to them. Red is red for no reason in particular.

This is why Picasso’s less adventurous uses of color are considered his best work (the bone, rose and blue period paintings)

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

No. We’re not going to intent. We’re going to objective cause and effect. Intent is only the argument for culpability in the act that determines whether schism actually occurred since the subjective state of the person is required for an act to be schismatic.

That’s not actually correct. We have the distinction between material and formal schism (and heresy, for that matter) because we believe someone can be in a state of schism without necessarily being culpable because of extenuating circumstance X, Y, or Z. Ecclesia Dei afflicta made it perfectly clear that a schism existed (and thus, there was at least *someone *in schism), so intent would only be able to mitigate or erase the culpability of those individuals who were at least materially in schism. Now, supporters of the SSPX really milk the ambiguity of “adherence” to the schism to try to get every single individual involved out of that boat, but John Paul II made it clear that at least somebody was in material, if not formal, schism.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

JKirkLVNV;1864001:

Being the final authority on a law does not make him right. All that means is that there is no appeal process that can override him. At one time it was thought a council could override a Pope and depose him.

The law of the Church cannot be vicious. John Paul established that, according to the law, ordination of bishops without papal mandate is a schismatic act. That can’t be a merely fallacious interpretation of the law because the pope is not just supreme adjudicator but also supreme legislator and executor. He MAKES the law. A law that, however imperfect, cannot be immoral. So his authority on the law actually does make him right.

 

[st_bernard]

The law of the Church cannot be vicious. John Paul established that, according to the law, ordination of bishops without papal mandate is a schismatic act. That can’t be a merely fallacious interpretation of the law because the pope is not just supreme adjudicator but also supreme legislator and executor. He MAKES the law. A law that, however imperfect, cannot be immoral. So his authority on the law actually does make him right.

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

Our Holy Father cannot abrogate Holy Tradition but infact is the servant there of.

If the Pope, tomorrow, stated that Holy Communion would be give with peanut butter and jelly for now on as the two species… he would be in error.

Gratias

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Your argument is circular. You say the schismatic wants to define who is in communion with the Holy Father instead of the Holy Father defining who is in communion with himself.

As I pointed out in the definition of schism as explained by St. Thomas Aquinas (approved of by the Church) The schismatic must **intentionally and willfully **separate himself. It doesn’t necessitate a statement from the Holy Father. So, it is the schismatic who defines his position as separate from the Holy Father.

Canon law is both clear and murky at the same time. Canon 751 says “…schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” There is general recognition that many cases of disobedience, which in the end are refusals of submission, are not considered schismatic. That’s murky. The clarity comes in, however, when the lawgiver provides it: John Paul II informed Abp. Lefebvre that, according to the law he both promulgated and authoritatively interpreted, ordaining those bishops would be a schismatic act, i.e. constitute refusal of submission that, according to law by which the Abp. was bound, would create a schism. Abp. Lefebvre, knowing this full well, intentionally and willfullycommitted the act anyway. So you may agree with St. Thomas’ proof text that schism can only come about through the intention of the schismatic (although he’s not an oracle and there are live opinions to the contrary), but even by his definition a schism existed/exists. Abp. Lefebvre intentionally committed a schismatic act. As to his justifcation for that schism, consult the Catholic Encyclopedia:

*Various motives have been brought forward in justification of Schism: **(1) Some have claimed the introduction into the Church of abuses, dogmatic and liturgical novelties, superstitions, with which they are permitted, even bound, not to ally themselves. Without entering into the foundation for these charges it should be noted that the authors cited above do not mention or admit a single exception. If we accept their statements separation from the Church is necessarily an evil, an injurious and blameworthy act, and abandoning of the true way of salvation, and this independent of all contingent circumstances. Moreover the doctrines of the Fathers exclude a priori any such attempt at justification; to use their words, it is forbidden for individuals or particular or national Churches to constitute themselves judges of the universal Church; the mere fact of having it against one carries its own condemnation. *
newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

Our Holy Father cannot abrogate Holy Tradition but infact is the servant there of.

If the Pope, tomorrow, stated that Holy Communion would be give with peanut butter and jelly for now on as the two species… he would be in error.

Gratias

Thanks to disciplinary infallibility, the pope *cannot *bind us to distribute PB&J as communion, because he cannot promulgate a law contrary to faith and morals. In promulgating the law that defined schism and interpreting it (before the ordinations!) to the effect that ordaining without papal mandate was schismatic, he was setting the discipline of the church. Hence, once again, the law of the church cannot be vicious, and according to that law Abp. Lefebvre committed a schismatic act.

 

[LilyM]

What makes you think that two pieces of artwork from two different periods in time can’t be compared and one of them to be found to be of higher value than the other?

To make the analogy a little clearer, the TLM could be analogous to a fine Rembrandt (Leonardo was not a successful painter when you get into it.) And the Novus Ordo could be compared to a Jackson Pollack.

Rembrandt is superior to Pollack on all counts when it comes to understanding and evaluating the qualities of art (decorative, expressive and illustrative ) and the use of plastic means (line, light, color and space)

And yet so many Rembrandt paintings, while no doubt possessing all these fine qualities, leave me and many I know who’ve see them cold and feel and are so very dark and gloomy, whereas both Picasso and Jackson Pollock (and I’ve had the privilege of seeing ‘Blue Poles’ often) resonate on an emotional level - and I defy anyone to look at ‘Guernica’ and not be moved by it.

In summary - art is something that has to communicate to us if it is to have value. So is liturgy. That always leaves a decent amount of room for subjective judgements as to value.

If the TLM and Rembrandt speak more to you than the NO and Picasso or Pollock, wonderful, and I’ll fight alongside you for your right to them. I trust you won’t think less of me if I frankly tell you my opinion is the other way around. After all, I’m far from being the only one and we’re not all (not nearly) of this opinion out of ignorance.

 

[st_bernard]

Thanks to disciplinary infallibility, the pope *cannot *bind us to distribute PB&J as communion, because he cannot promulgate a law contrary to faith and morals. In promulgating the law that defined schism and interpreting it (before the ordinations!) to the effect that ordaining without papal mandate was schismatic, he was setting the discipline of the church. Hence, once again, the law of the church cannot be vicious, and according to that law Abp. Lefebvre committed a schismatic act.

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

I believe in keeping the causality narrow your argument gives the appearance of validity. Once the extenuating causes are revealed we begin to see that the Tridentine Mass was unjustly abrogated which is not within the power of the Pope nor the Bishops of the Holy Catholic Church. This makes all extenuating merits for promulgating schism upon Abp. Lefebvre invalid which is why the issue is so murky even among the Vatican today.

Gratias

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Gratia et pax vobiscum,

I believe in keeping the causality narrow your argument gives the appearance of validity. Once the extenuating causes are revealed we begin to see that the Tridentine Mass was unjustly abrogated which is not within the power of the Pope nor the Bishops of the Holy Catholic Church. This makes all extenuating merits for promulgating schism upon Abp. Lefebvre invalid which is why the issue is so murky even among the Vatican today.

Gratias

You can’t have it both ways. Here are two questions:

1. Is the pope, as supreme legislator, capable of imposing a liturgy on the Church and making changes to that liturgy?

If no, you’ve already jumped ship. If yes,

1. Why was the promulgation of the Novus Ordo not a legitimate exercise of that authority?

Basically every liturgical adaptation under the sun had already been done by other popes (changes in the calendar, texts of particular prayers, additions of elements, etc.) and Piux X even eliminated part of the Office, thus thwarting the attempt to say popes can change whatever they want so long as they don’t remove anything. Let’s not forget that the '65 missal, which also deleted some of the traditionalist favorites (myself included) was not contested as some attempt to do now with the Novus Ordo. Go ahead and argue that the NO was an asinine exercise of the pope’s authority. I sympathize. But I don’t see what makes it null and void.

 

[GerardP]

That’s not actually correct. We have the distinction between material and formal schism (and heresy, for that matter) because we believe someone can be in a state of schism without necessarily being culpable because of extenuating circumstance X, Y, or Z. Ecclesia Dei afflicta made it perfectly clear that a schism existed (and thus, there was at least *someone *in schism), so intent would only be able to mitigate or erase the culpability of those individuals who were at least materially in schism. Now, supporters of the SSPX really milk the ambiguity of “adherence” to the schism to try to get every single individual involved out of that boat, but John Paul II made it clear that at least somebody was in material, if not formal, schism.

We also have “passive” and “active” schism and “mixed” schism as well. But if you look it up on New Advent, it’s very clear that not all disobedience is schismatic. Accompanying it must be the denial of the Divine right of the Pontiff to rule.

And again, I don’t understand this constant appeal to authority as if something is a self-evident fact because the Pope said so. Reality doesn’t operate like that.

This is ultimately a matter of justice and a Pope has to straighten it out. A more than strong case can be made that JPII was in error by signing his name to Ecclesia Dei.

 

[GerardP]

GerardP;1864475:

The law of the Church cannot be vicious. John Paul established that, according to the law, ordination of bishops without papal mandate is a schismatic act. That can’t be a merely fallacious interpretation of the law because the pope is not just supreme adjudicator but also supreme legislator and executor. He MAKES the law. A law that, however imperfect, cannot be immoral. So his authority on the law actually does make him right.

The law is not vicious (otherwise it’s not a law) but a Pope can be vicious in his abuse of it. JPII had to ignore his own laws in order to force a conclusion of latiae sententia excommunication on LeFebvre. Cardinal Husar was secretly consecrated without a papal mandate and obviously that wasn’t a schismatic act.

And again you are giving the Pope guarantees that simply don’t exist in Catholic teaching. This myth that disciplinary laws are protected by the Holy Ghost from being harmful is destroying the faith of so many because it’s so obvious that it’s not true. The sedevacantists build virtually their whole case on this.

Again, if JPII ruled schism, the books will wrongly say schism. But reality tells a different tale. And when a future Pope reverses it, just as the multiple reversals regarding Pope Formosus’ actions, a single reality will have to win out as the truth.

 

[GerardP]

Thanks to disciplinary infallibility, the pope *cannot *bind us to distribute PB&J as communion, because he cannot promulgate a law contrary to faith and morals. In promulgating the law that defined schism and interpreting it (before the ordinations!) to the effect that ordaining without papal mandate was schismatic, he was setting the discipline of the church. Hence, once again, the law of the church cannot be vicious, and according to that law Abp. Lefebvre committed a schismatic act.

I don’t think you understand what is meant by disciplinary infallibility.

From the CE.

*"…To claim that disciplinary infallibility consists in regulating, without possibility of error, the adaptation of a general law to its end, is equivalent to the assertion of a (quite unnecessary) positive infallibility, which the incessant abrogation of laws would belie and which would be to the Church a burden and a hindrance rather than an advantage, since it would suppose each law to be the best. Moreover, it would make the application of laws to their end the object of a positive judgment of the Church; this would not only be useless but would become a perpetual obstacle to disciplinary reform." *

Under normal circumstances a law regulating the consecration of bishops being reserved to the Holy See is quite appropriate. Unfortunately we are not in “normal circumstances”

The cases of LeFebvre and Card. Husar and any Chinese bishops that we don’t know about are exceptions that Canon Law takes into account.

A situation like Milingo consecrating married priests for the purpose of continuing a push for the agenda against celibacy is a different matter entirely. (with the possible exception that Milingo being a famous exorcist, is demonically possessed. This could be why the Vatican will not recognize the consecrations as valid)

 

[GerardP]

Canon law is both clear and murky at the same time.

That is a contradiction.

Canon 751 says “…schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” There is general recognition that many cases of disobedience, which in the end are refusals of submission, are not considered schismatic. That’s murky.

It’s not murky at all disobedience is one thing. “I’m not going to do this even though you are my superior.” Schism is another, “You are not my superior, you have no right to give me a command, just or unjust.”

The clarity comes in, however, when the lawgiver provides it:

No. That’s a circular argument. That’s like the Protestant that try to prove the bible is the sole rule of faith from the Bible itself. You’re doing nothing different than citing 2 Timothy 3:16

John Paul II informed Abp. Lefebvre that, according to the law he both promulgated and authoritatively interpreted, ordaining those bishops would be a schismatic act,

Unfortunately JPII is not guaranteed that he will correctly interpret the laws of the Church. You are giving the Pope superhuman perceptions that he does not have.

Schism actually means something theologically. It’s not what JPII says it is.

i.e. constitute refusal of submission that, according to law by which the Abp. was bound, would create a schism.

That is the equivalent of the Pope saying 2+2=5.

Abp. Lefebvre, knowing this full well, intentionally and willfullycommitted the act anyway.

The intention and will to do the act is not the intention and will to go into schism. LeFebvre never denied that the Pope is the head of the Church and has full authority. What happened is the Pope’s refusal to engage in his pastoral duty of reigning in heretics created a situation that compelled LeFebvre to act. Read the opening paragraphs of St. Pius X’s “pascendi” and you’ll see laid out the responsibilities of the Pope.

So you may agree with St. Thomas’ proof text that schism can only come about through the intention of the schismatic (although he’s not an oracle and there are live opinions to the contrary), but even by his definition a schism existed/exists.

Incorrect as shown above.

Abp. Lefebvre intentionally committed a schismatic act.

No. LeFebvre intentionally disobeyed the Pope on a grave matter for grave reasons. But none of those reasons was the denial of papal primacy.

 

[GerardP]

*Various motives have been brought forward in justification of Schism: *(1) Some have claimed the introduction into the Church of abuses, dogmatic and liturgical novelties, superstitions, with which they are permitted, even bound, not to ally themselves. Without entering into the foundation for these charges it should be noted that the authors cited above do not mention or admit a single exception. If we accept their statements separation from the Church is necessarily an evil, an injurious and blameworthy act, and abandoning of the true way of salvation, and this independent of all contingent circumstances. Moreover the doctrines of the Fathers exclude a priori any such attempt at justification; to use their words, it is forbidden for individuals or particular or national Churches to constitute themselves judges of the universal Church; the mere fact of having it against one carries its own condemnation.
newadvent.org/cathen/13529a.htm

The problem with using this citation is that it refers to someone who has willingly and intentionally denied the Pope has the divine right to command and they are justifying their schism. LeFebvre made no schism, so there is no need to justify himself as a schismatic. He was disobedient and justified his actions for disobeying. We are talking about a false accusation of schism. It’s a matter of justice that JPII owed to LeFebvre. Hopefully, they both have reconciled in Heaven.

 

[GerardP]

And yet so many Rembrandt paintings, while no doubt possessing all these fine qualities, leave me and many I know who’ve see them cold and feel and are so very dark and gloomy, whereas both Picasso and Jackson Pollock (and I’ve had the privilege of seeing ‘Blue Poles’ often) resonate on an emotional level - and I defy anyone to look at ‘Guernica’ and not be moved by it.

Well, from a psychological viewpoint, I’m sure you could look at a Rembrandt and view it as “warming” and “coming out of the cold” in many instances because of the “chiarascuro” or “emerging from the shadows” device that Rembrandt employed. Also the Dutch tradition in painting has an emphasis on everyday subject matter.

But the reaction to it is purely subjective. The value of the art is objective. Whether I like something or not, it’s either a well-ordered work or not. I may know that a Picasso is a marvelous work of art, but it may not satisfy me emotionally. But my emotions aren’t really anything but a distraction to appreciating the artwork. When I was studying, the teacher at the Gallery told a story of a visitor saying, “I love the Renoirs. They have such chubby faces.” He said, "You don’t love Renoir’s art. You love chubby faces. He then pulled out a package of Northern bathroom tissue and said, “This does it for me.” There has to be something about Renoir in that case that separates it from the Bathroom tissue.

In summary - art is something that has to communicate to us if it is to have value. So is liturgy. That always leaves a decent amount of room for subjective judgements as to value.

But you have to learn the language of the artist to properly get the message. It’s far too easy and frequent that in today’s society we only view art on a superficial or sociological level. We are lionizing junk in many cases and missing the diamonds.

If the TLM and Rembrandt speak more to you than the NO and Picasso or Pollock, wonderful, and I’ll fight alongside you for your right to them. I trust you won’t think less of me if I frankly tell you my opinion is the other way around. After all, I’m far from being the only one and we’re not all (not nearly) of this opinion out of ignorance.

I’m certainly not going to think less of you in any way shape or form. But I am trying to get a point across that this isn’t about a preference of chocolate or vanilla. There is significant material missing in the New Mass. I’m perfectly comfortable with someone preferring the ancient Eastern rites in all their magnificence to the TLM than the TLM vs. the Novus Ordo.

I was always perfectly happy and emotionally satisfied with the Novus Ordo. I come from a conservative diocese. It was only when I discovered the origins and controversies and the differences in the development of the Novus Ordo along with the years of warnings of the pre-conciliar Popes (eg. Pius XII calling radical liturgical changes as “suicide”)

Add to that, the Ottaviani Intervention, Michael Davies very well written series on the Mass where he pointed to the very same omissions that the Reformers made were the ones that the Consilium made. Annibale Bugnini’s masonic ties.

And if you really want to hear something interesting. I suggest you (you meaning everyone) get ahold of Charles Coulombe (made a papal knight by JPII) and William Biersach’s informative and entertaining 16 hour taped comparison of the missals of the Novus Ordo and the TLM in both Latin and English with the rubrics explained. One example they bring up is the Kyrie being reduced from 9 to six invocations. Instead of 3 sets of 3 for the Trinity and also the nine choirs of angels being invoked, we are reduced to a meaningless and redundant six invocations. That’s just one example of literally hundreds.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The problem with using this citation is that it refers to someone who has willingly and intentionally denied the Pope has the divine right to command and they are justifying their schism. LeFebvre made no schism, so there is no need to justify himself as a schismatic. He was disobedient and justified his actions for disobeying. We are talking about a false accusation of schism. It’s a matter of justice that JPII owed to LeFebvre. Hopefully, they both have reconciled in Heaven.

Well if that isn’t begging the question, I don’t know what is…

At any rate, I am perfectly content to let the citation stand as is. The reader can decide whether or not it seems particularly close to the situation of Abp. Lefebvre and his confederates.